it was done by decidedly non-suburban, and most decidely non-up-and-comers in NYC and Boston during the glory days of white-shoe investment banking.

What does this even mean? Did people actually wear white shoes to work? I can't picture it. Â "The glory days of investment banking"...? Huh...

Just in case you aren't joking or pretending to be deliberately obtuse: Â white shoe firms refered to those old firms that were decidely WASP. "Glory days", half-joking refers to the 1980's. Â Which I mark, in a socio-economic sense, as sort of the last hurrah of a pre-democratized market.

I wasn't joking... I'm only 22, I had no idea what you were talking about, thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt.

Personally, I do not care too much for loafers to begin with, and even less those with tassels. Tassel loafers with a suit is a combination that just plain bums me out. It reeks to me of suburban up-and-comer sales executive, trying to "look the part" while lacking any individual sense of style. Whew, glad I got that off my chest. If I've offended anyone, may I add that on some folks loafers look fine, as well I'm sure that many E.G. versions are quite striking, just not my personal style. Let me also proffer that I myself am not a suit wearer, and offer my opinions merely as a casually (and at times, grubbily) dressed observer.

At last, a brother-in-arms. Regards, Jack

A personal observation/rememberance: The old Brooks loafers with tassels is a very old (relatively speaking) look. Now, while it mayn't be proper in many occasions, it was done by decidedly non-suburban, and most decidely non-up-and-comers in NYC and Boston during the glory days of white-shoe investment banking.

You're right, Horace, the Brooks tassel and rounded-toe penny loafer styles are rather venerable--but neither is appropriate with a suit. Regards, Jack

Yes, certainly not the penny. And I wouldn't wear either with a suit; however, I would certainly argue that it has been done and that it is acceptable in places like Boston and NYC, not only for Madison Ave. professions but for law and banking. I would interrogate the people with whom one is meeting (for some residue of bourgeoise social climbing propriety or whatnot) more than I would the wearer of those shoes if there is a problem.

As you say, Horace, it is certainly done by persons in the Madison Ave. advertising business, and by other professionals both in New York and Boston, but it is not appropriate, nevertheless. I am glad to note that you would never combine loafers with a suit. And rather than interview one's business contacts for clues--which is at best a non-starter--I prefer to come loaded for bear. Regards, Jack

I would venture a guess that 90% of businesspeople (and that number is probably closer to 98% west of the Mississippi) wouldn't cast a second glance at someone wearing dress loafers with a suit. I choose not to wear them during the daytime because of preference, but even mainstream national media is saying this practice is OK.

I would venture a guess that 90% of businesspeople (and that number is probably closer to 98% west of the Mississippi) wouldn't cast a second glance at someone wearing dress loafers with a suit. I choose not to wear them during the daytime because of preference, but even mainstream national media is saying this practice is OK.

Mainstream national media doesn't know s--- from shinola, and neither do 98% of the businessmen west of the Mississippi--but I deal with another breed of person altogether. And you know better, too, or you wouldn't be here in the first place. I agree that most businessmen anywhere these days haven't a clue about the rules of proper dress (and conduct, for that matter). We are different, however. And who crowned the majority decision in matters of style, anyway? We are individualists who care about rules that in some cases are no longer relevant. I'm proud of that fact. Regards, Jack

I would agree with some of this, I think generally the average person and mainstream media perpetuate poor dress, but things do change as well, and I think some arbitrary "rules of dress" that may have been prevalent in the past don't necessarily have to be obeyed for someone to be well-dressed. If I saw someone wearing a dark charcoal suit with a french blue shirt and coordinating tie and cufflinks, with beautiful brown/black dress loafers, I would probably think they were well dressed, even though I wouldn't use that ensemble myself.

I would agree with some of this, I think generally the average person and mainstream media perpetuate poor dress, but things do change as well, and I think some arbitrary "rules of dress" that may have been prevalent in the past don't necessarily have to be obeyed for someone to be well-dressed. If I saw someone wearing a dark charcoal suit with a french blue shirt and coordinating tie and cufflinks, with beautiful brown/black dress loafers, I would probably think they were well dressed, even though I wouldn't use that ensemble myself.

Rules and taste don't necessarily converge, which is why spheres of influence should always be taken into account. A person can look all right, and still be light in his loafers. Regards, Jack

I guess I think there is a fine line between dressing well in a classic manner and dressing in an anachronistic manner. Personally I have many classic elements to my manner of dress (choice of suitings, shoes), but also incorporate quite a few modern ones (shirt/tie color) and some stylistic elements that may have been considered iconoclastic some time ago (loafers with a suit) may be considered at least appropriate and perhaps mainstream. Obviously some rules should be obeyed, but how does one decide which ones? In my opinion, the rules change along with the times, at least to some degree. While there are some stylistic elements that may always be considered "classic" there are some that may go the way of the buggy whip and horse and carriage.

I guess I think there is a fine line between dressing well in a classic manner and dressing in an anachronistic manner. Personally I have many classic elements to my manner of dress (choice of suitings, shoes), but also incorporate quite a few modern ones (shirt/tie color) and some stylistic elements that may have been considered iconoclastic some time ago (loafers with a suit) may be considered at least appropriate and perhaps mainstream. Obviously some rules should be obeyed, but how does one decide which ones? In my opinion, the rules change along with the times, at least to some degree. While there are some stylistic elements that may always be considered "classic" there are some that may go the way of the buggy whip and horse and carriage.

You make valid points (that last buggy whip maker must have turned out one hell of a product). In the meantime, I consider that a simple rule like no loafers with a suit, and I will make that a rather dark, formal suit, out of respect for your well-considered comments, is not in my view anachronistic, it is merely proper, and appropriate, particularly if the fellow doing the wearing is an old guard traditionalist, who deals with others unamused by "fashion" or trends. Regards, Jack

I certainly have no problem with someone choosing to dress in that manner, as I do so myself. I simply wouldn't hold it against someone who chose to dress otherwise, as long as it was tasteful and looked good.

(Thracozaag @ 11 Oct. 2004, 7:06) I can honestly thank the stars that I'm in a field where I don't have to worry about these ridiculous restrictions regarding loafers with suits. Â My one pair of Lobb shoes is a loafer. koji

Ridiculous restrictions? There is nothing ridiculous about propriety. And you are fortunate indeed to work in a field that allows you to freely express your preferences. Jack

Any line of work which frowns upon a gorgeous pair of loafers paired with a suit, I do find ridiculous, imo. koji